MCC: Heat turns on meat now

Slaughter charges to go up from ` 7.50 to ` 30; consumers to bear the brunt

The revision in fee has been made after a gap of seven years. It was way back in the year 2002, the fee was hiked from Rs five to ` 7.50. However, there was a demand for increasing it to ` 10, but was finalised for ` 7.50.

When the agenda was tabled at the council, a section of councillors especially of BJP in majority came out with divided opinions.

Corporators M Jayashankaraswamy and M V Ramprasad supported the revision, but only to find a contrasting version in their own party councillor T V Girish Prasad, who opposed the same. The latter said that the further revision in fee would prompt mutton sellers to put the burden on buyers by going for hike. Already the rate of per kg mutton is ` 250.

As is the routine, the mutton traders have to obtain the seal of MCC on every slaughtered animal before selling the same.

It was also decided to increase grants to the wards, owing to the corporators miffed at the alleged inordinate delay by the commissioner, in taking up the works.

Increased grants

The grants were  increased from ` 10 lakh to ` 25 lakh for tender works in each of the 65 wards in the city, while for piece works it remained unchanged at Rs five lakh.

Earlier, when Mayor Pushpalatha T B Chikkanna announced to increase it to Rs 15 lakh there was a huge uproar. Corporator T Devaraj said that his ward alone comprises nine slums and development works would be far from reality.

Asphaltation works of a particular road in the ward alone requires Rs 30 lakh. Leader of the Opposition in the council A B Vidya Urs also stressed for increasing the same.

As soon as the council convened corporators cutting across party lines traded their guns on Commissioner K S Raykar for delaying the works. Whenever any work is sent for the commissioner’s approval, the latter forwards it to the superintending engineer and other officers.  The meeting as witness to some outbursts of anger too.  Janata Dal (Secular) Councillor K T Chaluvegowda alleged that the commissioner nurses negative bias against the corporators, and always assumes that the latter are always on the wrong foot.

Pressing his demands for works to be met faster, another councillor Mahadevappa asked the officer to sanction the pending jobs without any further delay, since the corporators were running short of time as their tenure was of short period.

When the commissioner came out  with a reply, th at was not acceptable to the councillors, senior councillor H N Srikantaiah likened the functioning of the officer to  ‘dindima kavi’ ( a poet who challenges  Kaviratna Kalidasa) evoking laughter from his colleagues.

The council also discussed about ‘Namma Mane’ project, but preferred to kept the same in pending.

The commissioner said that a meeting has been arranged at the office of deputy commissioner shortly, to discuss ov er the  banks poor response to sanction loan to the beneficiaries under the project. According to the corporators the banks procedure is lengthy.